NVIDIA virtualizes the GPU for streamed desktops and cloud gaming

New GPUs also triple speed for high-performance computing

NVIDIA this week unveiled an ambitious plan to solidify the GPU's place in high-performance computing, while bringing the blazingly fast graphics processing units to the worlds of virtualized desktops and streaming video games.

NVIDIA has tripled the performance-per-watt of its HPC-focused graphics processors and made them capable of running many more workloads simultaneously. NVIDIA also claims to have developed the "world's first virtualized GPU" with a virtualization layer that integrates with commercial hypervisors to build a virtual desktop platform similar to the ones businesses already use today. The difference, according to NVIDIA and its partner Citrix, is that GPU-based desktops can be streamed from data centers to devices faster and with much better quality.

To top it all off, NVIDIA said it has developed a system for powering cloud services with GPUs, which in the gaming world will let consumers play games on just about any device without bothering to download any actual games. NVIDIA made all these announcements Tuesday at its GPU Technology Conference in San Jose, bringing various partners on stage to show the world just how excited everyone is about the new technologies.

One such industry luminary was David Perry, CEO of gaming company Gaikai, who is also a former Atari executive and created numerous video games including Earthworm Jim. Perry showed the crowd "Hawken," a multi-player first-person shooter slated for release in December. Hawken will be streamed from servers to tablets, PCs, or even straight to a TV. Perry and a colleague demonstrated playing the game on an LG Cinema 3D Smart TV with a controller, no console required. The server hosting the game was 10 miles away, the companies said.

NVIDIA's new GeForce GRID cloud gaming platform is what will make it possible to stream high-quality games with latencies low enough to make the game seem as though it's running locally, Perry and NVIDIA said. Perry hopes streaming games will break the grip on the gaming market enjoyed by console makers Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo.

"Can you imagine making a movie and it only working on one kind of television?" Perry said. "That would be crazy, but we put up with it (in gaming)." In addition to Gaikai, game makers Capcom, Epic Games, Playcast, THQ, and Ubitus said they're planning to host games on the NVIDIA cloud gaming platform.

The GeForce GRID gaming architecture has processors with 3,072 cores for 4.7 teraflops of "3D shader performance," according to NVIDIA. "This enables providers to render highly complex games in the cloud and encode them on the GPU, rather than the CPU, allowing their servers to simultaneously run more game streams," NVIDIA said. "Server power-consumption per game stream is reduced to about one-half that of previous implementations, an important metric for data centers." A complementary streaming technology reduces server latency to 10 milliseconds or greater, the company also said.

Speeding up virtualization

In a similar initiative, but one with impact on the business IT world, NVIDIA unveiled its VGX virtualization platform, which includes a hypervisor that enables virtualization of the GPU by connecting to Citrix XenServer and potentially other commercially available hypervisors. Ultimately, NVIDIA said VGX will power up to 100 virtual desktops from a single server, delivering Windows images to users on iPads, other tablets, thin clients, laptops or smartphones through the well-established Citrix Receiver technology.

Virtual desktops have been around for years, but haven't overtaken the traditional one-PC-per-employee model dominant in the business world. Perhaps the biggest sticking points are the lack of usefulness virtual desktops have when offline, and lackluster performance. VMware and Citrix have both pitched their high-definition streaming protocols as a solution to performance problems—now NVIDIA says what's also needed are GPUs.

GPUs will be used to speed up traditional servers, as NVIDIA said it is developing a board configured with four GPUs, each with 192 cores, and 16GB total memory. The boards fit into industry-standard PCI Express slots in servers. To help out IT shops, NVIDIA said it has developed a management tool letting businesses "configure the graphics capabilities delivered to individual users in the network, based on their demands."

Pricing hasn't been announced yet, but NVIDIA said it's working with hardware vendors and virtualization software providers, including Citrix, to get it ready for enterprise deployments later this year.

Faster, smarter GPUs for high-performance computing

Finally, NVIDIA built on its previous initiatives to boost supercomputing speed with graphics processors by unveiling "Kepler," which replaces its previous Fermi architecture. NVIDIA's GPUs are already used in many of the world's fastest supercomputers, working in concert with CPUs to provide an extra boost.

Kepler processors, with the commercial names Tesla K10 and K20, will feature triple the performance per watt of Fermi, and will be able to run many more processes at once, NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang said during the GPU Technology Conference. "It is the best GPU we've ever built, the most energy efficient GPU we've ever built," Huang said. "Moore's Law surely would not have predicted anything this dramatic."

The GPUs feature 192 cores using NVIDIA's CUDA parallel computing platform, up from 32 in Fermi. Kepler also uses various methods to increase utilization, preventing wasted processor cycles. A technology named Hyper-Q will allow GPUs to work on 32 processes at once, whereas Fermi could only handle one workload at a time. "Hyper-Q enables multiple CPU cores to launch work on a single GPU simultaneously, thereby dramatically increasing GPU utilization and slashing CPU idle times," NVIDIA says in a product data sheet. "This feature increases the total number of connections between the host and the Kepler GK110 GPU by allowing 32 simultaneous, hardware-managed connections, compared to the single connection available with Fermi."

Now, CPUs can keep firing workloads at GPUs without running into lags. The GPUs in Kepler are also more independent. Algorithms often use nested loops, in which the results of one calculation are needed to determine what to run next, Huang noted. In previous architectures, the CPU had to direct the GPU at every step in the process—with Kepler's new "Dynamic Parallelism" feature, the GPU can create work for itself based on the results of previous calculations.

Tesla K10 is available now, and server companies are already integrating it into their machines to accelerate workloads. The more robust Tesla K20 (which includes Hyper-Q and Dynamic Parallelism) will be available in Q4 2012, and will target computational fluid dynamics, physics, and finance workloads. NVIDIA showed a demonstration of the GPU simulating the future state of the Universe, including the anticipated collision of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies a few billion years into the future.

The Intels and AMDs of the world aren't going away any time soon, but NVIDIA has steadily increased the number of workloads that can be enhanced by using CPUs and GPUs together since the 1999 release of the GeForce 256, the so-called "world's first GPU." With three of the world's five fastest supercomputers running NVIDIA chips in combination with Intel processors, and NVIDIA's success in gaming PCs, the technology has proved its worth at some of the biggest and smallest scales. Dominating in new areas like cloud-based gaming and virtual desktops will be a hard battle both for technical reasons and competitive ones, but NVIDIA is clearly bringing out the big guns.

Promoted Comments

Agree 100%, Bandwidth is the main factor slowing cloud migration. Internal networks are gigagibit, a good SMB WAN connection is 40Mb download. The other is service outages. It's great to have stuff in the cloud but when you can't connect to it Bad Things Happen. Groupware stuff is great for the cloud but what about LOB applications with high bandwidth requirements?

It seems to me that most of the criticism of cloud computing focuses on the wrong things. Security for example, is not much of an issue when your stuff is hosted in a Google datacenter with various security obligations contractually stipulated. It's the network, stupid, to paraphrase Clinton.

How exactly is this technology going to play nice in the real world with the ever increasing bandwidth limitations ISPs are falling in love with.

This is exactly my point as well. With all the ISP bandwidth and speed limitation. Cloud computing or gaming such as OnLive won't work well for most population in America. Our ISPs in America are so inferior and high price compare to Eastern countries where they host around 50-Mbps - 100Mbps on residential for many years already.

How exactly is this technology going to play nice in the real world with the ever increasing bandwidth limitations ISPs are falling in love with.

This is exactly my point as well. With all the ISP bandwidth and speed limitation. Cloud computing or gaming such as OnLive won't work well for most population in America. Our ISPs in America are so inferior and high price compare to Eastern countries where they host around 50-Mbps - 100Mbps on residential for many years already.

It might get darker before it gets lighter. But as soon as a policymaker can't download his movie because his kid has been playing streaming games, it'll start getting lighter.

The more applications like this emerge, the more ridiculous the caps start to seem. It's a good thing.

How exactly is this technology going to play nice in the real world with the ever increasing bandwidth limitations ISPs are falling in love with.

This is exactly my point as well. With all the ISP bandwidth and speed limitation. Cloud computing or gaming such as OnLive won't work well for most population in America. Our ISPs in America are so inferior and high price compare to Eastern countries where they host around 50-Mbps - 100Mbps on residential for many years already.

There's also the matter of latency. If you've got a 50ms ping time to the OnLive server, it'll take 100ms for the image to be displayed and for your input to make it back to the server. For a number of games (notable first person shooters) that sort of latency is enough to ensure you're dead.

If everyone you're playing against is hosted on the same OnLive server, you shouldn't have a problem. Everyone will have the same disadvantage. However, if the OnLive server then needs to connect to a multiplayer server, you're compounding the response times. That's likely to be quite noticeable unless all of the connections are geographically fairly short.

The only thing that comes to my mind after reading this sort of announcement is f*** cloud gaming. There's no way I'm making my gaming hobby more dependant on third-parties. Thank god for kickstart and indie developers. We might see a resurgence of the 80s and early 90s gaming boom again but with better graphics and production overall.

"A complementary streaming technology reduces server latency to 10 milliseconds or greater, the company also said."So, 10ms< = whenever?It doesn't seem like the way the should have put it, but I guess it's kind of honest...

Not sure what Nvidia brings to the table with Perry as he already has a cloud gaming service Gaikai that has been up and running for a while now, it sounded more like marketing fluff than anything else.

Gaikai use x264 to compress the video stream which is what gives it the better image quality over OnLive and x264 is CPU only, so they are not using GPU's in Gaikai other than for the games.

I don't see how GRID can possibly solve all latency issues, let alone cross platform issues. They don't control the entire interwebz. They don't control my ISP's hardware or routing system. Even if they use a more latency-sensitive protocol they're still subject to outside interference.

On top of that, how does this possibly end hardware-specific reliance? You still have to have SOME type of client written for these devices, and devices are numerous and varied. I highly doubt they will write code for every potential client.

Of all the things that can go wrong with cloud streaming ping is the worst culprit and it necessarily doesn't have to be from server it is generally the ISP fault I'd love to see modern warfare 3 running at zero lag on a cloud based server but it's not possible unless you have a fiber optic cable right from the server to your system

What about wireless on iPad or galaxy tabThe ping delay from wifi or 3G renders almost all fast paced shooters and racers virtually unplayable.

Not sure what Nvidia brings to the table with Perry as he already has a cloud gaming service Gaikai that has been up and running for a while now, it sounded more like marketing fluff than anything else.

Gaikai use x264 to compress the video stream which is what gives it the better image quality over OnLive and x264 is CPU only, so they are not using GPU's in Gaikai other than for the games.

Actually it looks like x264 will be getting an OpenCL unit in the near future, according to anandtech.

TBH, the part that pisses me off the most, is that they've wasted a crap-ton of engineering time on this crap, whereas they still (after almost 2 years) have standard graphics drivers which have some major bugs (TDR's etc)...I literally swaped my GTX 560Ti last night for the competition because I'm so sick of problematic drivers.

This is all well and good, but I wish NVIDIA would focus more on getting silicon out for the GTX 680 instead of this. Refreshing pages on Newegg hoping I get a crack at ordering one before it is sold out is not ideal from a consumer perspective.

How exactly is this technology going to play nice in the real world with the ever increasing bandwidth limitations ISPs are falling in love with.

This is exactly my point as well. With all the ISP bandwidth and speed limitation. Cloud computing or gaming such as OnLive won't work well for most population in America. Our ISPs in America are so inferior and high price compare to Eastern countries where they host around 50-Mbps - 100Mbps on residential for many years already.

Our ISPs are inferior because cable service providers are running monopolies which are for the most part granted by local governments. Here in Chattanooga TN where we broke Comcast's choke hold on fast internet by allowing our Electric Power Board run municipal fiber I quite literally saw my connection speed (I switched providers in an instant) go from 1/6Mbps in a good day go to 50/50Mbps all the while lowering my bill. And Comcast took the city to court saying how competition was going to be a bad thing.

From a customer standpoint? Platform exclusive games is probably the worst. Streaming does nothing for that though, the only people who want streamed games are the people flogging the cloud bits and the transmission bits. ISPs just aren't interested, gamers just aren't interested.

Agree 100%, Bandwidth is the main factor slowing cloud migration. Internal networks are gigagibit, a good SMB WAN connection is 40Mb download. The other is service outages. It's great to have stuff in the cloud but when you can't connect to it Bad Things Happen. Groupware stuff is great for the cloud but what about LOB applications with high bandwidth requirements?

It seems to me that most of the criticism of cloud computing focuses on the wrong things. Security for example, is not much of an issue when your stuff is hosted in a Google datacenter with various security obligations contractually stipulated. It's the network, stupid, to paraphrase Clinton.

its been said already, but i feel like it can be repeated a bajllion times: until the ISP monopolies are broken none of us are going to enjoy tech like this over the intarwebz. As a lan-party-in-a-cafe type scenario, this tech is TEH AWESOMEBALLZ. I foresee multiplayer gaming cafes removing money from pockets like mine in the very near future. This really could become the basis for a hoard of great business models that don't necessarily require the user to be at home dealing with Comcast, fortunately.

okay... so the world's super computers all run linux... and many of them use nvidia...why are linux drivers so bad!?!

This. If they're really going after the "cloud gaming" market, then they know something I don't- like, where that market is. There's a huge existing HPC market that they could be targeting this at, if the stuff works on Linux. 3D movie studios, defense programs, lots more, could potentially benefit.

In my believe Cloud gaming would be effective in LAN party or Gaming Cafe in which I think it helps saving costs on upgrade and replace broken hardware on each computer. Those LAN computers would be all just need a Ethernet connection and a low-mid-range GPU card.

This would be the same for game development in my guess, in-house Cloud Gaming server that can serves many game developers. So all the workstation would costs less to build.

I concur with the general sentiments posted here on cloud gaming. Maybe in 10 or 15 years when network infrastructure has greatly improved and 100+ megabit synchronous broadband connections are pretty much universal, cloud gaming will be feasible, but Nvidia is putting the cart before the horse here.

TBH, the part that pisses me off the most, is that they've wasted a crap-ton of engineering time on this crap, whereas they still (after almost 2 years) have standard graphics drivers which have some major bugs (TDR's etc)...I literally swaped my GTX 560Ti last night for the competition because I'm so sick of problematic drivers.

That was a pretty derp move considering AMD is notorious for having much worse drivers than nVidia.

Also, if you're getting TDRs, there's something wrong with your hardware. You need to RMA the card. It has nothing to do with drivers.

As long as the gaming server is within my own home, it is a great thing. It will allow playing games on any device, or for that matter different games on different devices. Third party streaming server; out of question. Networks will always remain, for me, a component you can't rely upon. Glitches or slow downs will spoil any gaming experience, defeating the purpose of gaming in the first place.

I find this interesting, but it seems like a waste of resource. Instead of having a game installed locally, where there's very low latency, you now have to wait for some server miles away to paint the pictures and mail them to you over the line. I could see this being useful in a corprate LAN, but even if bandwidth exploded I just don't see cloud gaming picking up to such extremes. We've already had situations where a server goes down, and some stupid game that requires "always online" confirmation won't let you play b/c of it. Imagine if you're paying money to some cloud gaming company and their server goes down. You're stuck playing NO games.

I'm not knocking the technology, it just seems inefficient. Maybe not for tablets or smartphones. But, I still feel there's a place for desktops and consoles, esp as technology keeps shrinking the components.